Court grants bail to accused in attempted robbery

A Delhi court has granted bail to a man accused of conspiring an attempted robbery of a vehicle carrying Rs 42 crore cash in east Delhi area in October, noting that the allegations against him were merely based on disclosure statements of other accused

‘Call data records not enough to establish conspiracy’

New Delhi: A Delhi court has granted bail to a man accused of conspiring an attempted robbery of a vehicle carrying Rs 4.2 crore cash in east Delhi area in October, noting that the allegations against him were merely based on disclosure statements of other accused.

A 50-year-old security guard of the cash van was killed after the accused allegedly opened fire at the vehicle in an attempt to rob it near the DND toll plaza in Mayur Vihar area.

Special Judge Pulastya Pramachala granted relief to the accused -- Parvesh -- on a personal bond of Rs 30,000, while imposing various conditions on him.

The court said the accused will not leave the country without its prior permission and insisted that accused should intimate in case of emergency; and that he will not try to influence the witnesses in the case.

The court took note of the submissions made by advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for the accused, that Delhi police lacked evidence against his client.

"In the present case, I find that allegations against the applicant are merely based on disclosure statements of either applicant or co-accused persons...

"Applicant is alleged to be one of the conspirators and such allegations require strict test of trial. Call detail records (CDR) in themselves cannot be sufficient to say that applicant was conspirator," the judge said in the December 11 order.

According to the FIR, on October 8, the accused had tried to rob a cash van in Mayur Vihar area of east Delhi using arms. Later, the police arrested some of the accused persons in the case, and on their disclosure statement, Parvesh was arrested.

The van belonged to a security agency and the victim guard was accompanied by the custodian of the firm along with the driver.

Accused had told the court that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the present case and that the case was mere based on the disclosure statement and call detail records.